Freedom, Bounded and Unbounded: The Justification of Coercive Force in Balthasar's Account of Human Freedom
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Balthasar seems well‐qualified to mediate even‐handedly an ongoing dispute between traditional Augustinian and Thomistic ethics and more recent cross‐focused ethical frameworks over the legitimacy of coercive force. Unlike some cross‐centred theologians, he does not categorically reject coercive force, aligning more closely with Alasdair MacIntyre's views and traditional Augustinian and Thomistic thought. However, Balthasar's thought suggests a stronger emphasis on reformative justice, which echoes Christ's kenotic gift of freedom‐granting grace to all but those who obdurately refuse it. In the resulting paradigm, legitimate use of force attempts to undo the terms on which it was necessary to coerce, thereby maintaining the priority of freedom while nevertheless granting that coercion may sometimes be legitimate. While these conclusions are not novel, his rigorously cross‐centred account of their grounding makes him a relevant voice in the debate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it